Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

An interesting couple of weeks, very revealing and troubling about Bush2's handling of the Presidency.

1. It is now clear that Enron (and likely other energy companies) was knee deep in scamming California during the electricity crisis -- that it was a manufactured crisis all along. Of course, as this was going on, First Buddy Kenny Lay had an office in the White House handpicking the people he wanted Bush2 to rubberstamp for pivotal positions dealing with enery and procurement in then-new Administration. This was also the time Bush2 was publicly saying that the problem was caused by California and the Feds could do nothing (which opinion changed as soon as the political heat rose a couple of months later).

De facto President Cheney was also lecturing California on its energy comsumption which, per capita, was one of the lowest in the US, demanding that we need to drill for more oil and undertaking in secret the preparation of an energy plan which gives short shrift to conservation and alternative sources and proposes that the only way to have enough energy is to drill more and give more tax breaks to, of all people, companies just like Enron!

It makes one want to say, "Hmmmm......"

2. Now, of course, is the revelation that Bush2 knew about a planned terrorist attack involving the hijacking of airplanes as early as a month before the attack of 911. The White House says they figured it would be just a typical hijacking (like this is no big thing in itself!) and the finger pointing has begun focusing on everyone but the man who should have demanded that all precautions be taken.

And this is the man we have leading us to war -- a war with no clear definition, with no clear enemy, with no clear strategy and with no known end point -- a war which he claims demands more control over the US population and the loss of civil liberties? A war which is seeing the deployment of American troops in countries far and wide around the world -- this week Columbia being announced as the latest to receive our "largesse" at the hands of Bush2?

I choose the first one however you care to characterize it. These are not "revelations". The first is a politically motivated attack with no basis in fact and the second is about an "indication" that the white house received that Osama bin Laden may be up to something and it "may" involve highjacking an American airliner. You are really stretching if you want to make a case out of this (just like your first point). This will be my only response to this tripe.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Originally posted by JBryan:I choose the first one however you care to characterize it. These are not "revelations". The first is a politically motivated attack with no basis in fact and the second is about an "indication" that the white house received that Osama bin Laden may be up to something and it "may" involve highjacking an American airliner. You are really stretching if you want to make a case out of this (just like your first point). This will be my only response to this tripe.[/b]

Let us take a look "this tripe" if you will, to see if it is all just political attacks.

Issue 1It is commonly know that Bush2 and Ken Lay were very close friends, had been for years, and that there were considerable contributions over the years to Bush2's various political campaigns by Enron. Indeed, records show that Enron was by far the largest contributor over the years to Bush2. Nothing wrong with this, of course, but it does raise questions of what level of political influence and access Enron was buying.

We also know that Ken Lay had an office on the White House during the first few months of the Administration to help with the transition and identify potential appointtees. No one denies this -- they simply say the Bush2 made his own decisions.

We know that during this time, California was experiencing severe electricity supply problems and was being billed astronomical rates. We also know that the profits of the energy producers at this same time had increased between 400%-600% from the previous year and their records show this can be traced to the cost of electricity in California and the West.

We know that Bush2 made many public comments saying there was nothing the Feds could do to resolve California's problems, that it was the result of the market working and the result of the way California had set up its consumer rate structure.

We know that Bush2 appointed members to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), all of whom had ties to the energy industry and that this Commission said it could not do anything to help the situation in California, because it was all market based.

We know that Cheney made several public comments claiming that California was on its own, that conservation was not a remedy (even as California reduced its already low per capita energy consumption by 20% through conservation during the crisis) and Cheney said this was all market driven and that price caps would not solve the problem.

We know that as last summer approached, there was growing concern that the problems in California would spread to the MidWest and the Northeast. We know that as Congress began to clamor for something to be done, FERC changed its mind and said there was something they could do, after all -- place price caps on the wholesale cost of electricity -- which is what California had been requesting for several months.

We know that the market for electricity immediately settled down and prices began to lower -- until today the price of electricity in California is lower than it was before the crisis -- and that the energy companies continue to show adequate and reasonable profits.

We have learned in the past two weeks from internal Enron documents that they purposely manipulated the flow of electricity to and from California during the crisis -- and the memos even explain how they did this.

Now, let's assume the best here -- that Bush2 and Cheney were hoodwinked and did not know what was going on.

If we have a President who avoids taking action to resolve a massive economic crisis in the State which is one of the most pivotal to the economy of the United States as a whole and he does this because he is not fully informed -- even as others were telling him there was far more to this story than he seemed to acknowledge -- the question must be raised about how Bush2 handles the gathering of information and advice when he makes major policy decisions.

Is his lack of gaining adequate information or of questioning the information he is receiving when others tell him to the way he runs his Administration? Is this how he makes decisions? If so, what are the implications of this?

(I might point out that we are also finding that several statements by Bush2 setting the stage for the way he envisions and is conducting his war on terrorism have also been shown to be either false or inadequate -- such as the claims he made that Iraq was involved, which others questioned a the time. The Feds themselves now say that there is and never has been any evidence of this; only assumptions. Why did Bush2 not question this information before he committed diplomatically and publicly created problems in the highly tense Middle East by claiming Iraq was involved and we had proof? What is the basis of information he is getting, and how well is it analyzed, as he deploys American troops to this war? Is there more of the same inability to get proper advice and lack of questioning of his sources?)

Issue 2We now know that the FBI and the CIA had advised Bush2 well in advance of 911 of the possible involvement of Bin Laden in planning plane hijackings in the US.

We know that he was also advised that men with connections with Bin Laden were taking flight lessons at various flight schools.

We know that Bush2's management style is similar to that of a CEO providing broad policy direction but keeping hands off of the details of implementation allowing his subordinates exercise a lot of authority.

So, let us again assume the best -- Bush2 got the information and directed his staff to take appropriate actions.

They obviously did not take appropriate actions. 911 happened.

This raises the question of Bush2's management style and if it is an adequate and appropriate style to maintain the safety of the US and to properly ensure that other policy initiatives suc as the war are being handled correctly.

Or does his hands-off style of management leave too many loopholes which leaves the US vulnerable? How can we be assured that the placement of troops in all of these countries that Bush2 has ordered will be handled in such a way that these troops will not be placed inappropriately in harms way and and that greater US involvement in localized strife and in worldwide military actions do not come about simply because Bush2's management style gives too much authority to his subordinates and does not maintain adequate executive oversight?

Esoteric analysis on what most would assume are not the big issues? Yep, no doubt. But it is these types of things that cause problems -- witness the attack of 911 which would not have taken place if Bush2 had made sure that his directives (assuming the best case scenario that he gave directives) had been carried out. His management style may likely have led to the biggest attack on the US since WWII. Hence, his management style is an important consideration for the safety and security of this country.

JBryan, you can call this all tripe of you'd like. But there are serious questions here and they are well worth investigating. Bush2 is leading us into a war -- a very serious endeavor wth potentially massive consequences. Given his track record, one has to ask if he is the one we want to trust to do this -- or if we should be putting the brakes on him because he has a record which does not bode well for the future?

Time magazine reported in December, 1998 that Osama bin Laden planned to retaliate against the U.S. with strikes in New York and/or Washington. The FBI had done some exercises in October of that year for the same reason. Similar reports continued. The ones to 43 just continued the pattern, but I'm sure that the politicians will make every bit of hay from it they can whether there is any truth to their accusations.

_________________________
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell...

Originally posted by George061875:And this is the man we have leading us to war -- a war with no clear definition, with no clear enemy, with no clear strategy and with no known end point -- a war which he claims demands more control over the US population and the loss of civil liberties? A war which is seeing the deployment of American troops in countries far and wide around the world -- [/b]

Has anyone else noticed a chilling parallel between the coming attack on Iraq and the Crusades?

Originally posted by Steve Miller: Has anyone else noticed a chilling parallel between the coming attack on Iraq and the Crusades?[/b]

Bush2 did refer to the War on Terrorism as a Crusade several times right after 9/11 before the Moslems reacted and someone told him that using that term was not a real good idea. But perhaps, in his mind, it was more than just a poor choice of words.

Of course, there are those who think that there are few poor choices of words, just slip ups that reveal what someone really thinks.

Sometimes I think everyone forgets that we are all humans. Bush is human, Every one of his cabinet members, every senator, every polition, every FBI member, CIA, they are all human. We start doing "finger pointing" towards one person, such as Bush, i think it is unbelievably unfair. You can't put the weight of the world on a man's shoulders and excpect him to notice every flaw, to never mess up...people are devious, people are kind, people are angry...there is nothing you can do to stop this. Nothing, throughout the folds of time, has ever come along to predict what exactly each person will do next, what will happen that will change history forever. So, i think before finger pointing and scapegoating is done, there needs to be an inward reflection of ourselves, and realizing that everyone in the world is just as human as we.

_________________________
"Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music." ~Rachmaninoff

Originally posted by George061875:Of course, there are those who think that there are few poor choices of words, just slip ups that reveal what someone really thinks.[/b]

Sort of like these poor choices of words George?:

-"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"-"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is"-"Just lie, Jennifer. If you don't tell them, they won't know. I'm going to lie, so you lie too"-I feel your pain"

There is nothing at all similar to an attack on Iraq and the crusades. The crusades were wrong. The people being hunted and killed during the crusades weren't the bad guys, it was the ones doing the hunting that were the bad guys. We are the ones being hunted this time. You have it backwards when you imply that if we attack Iraq we are comparable to the crusaders. It is the terrorists who are the crusaders in this one. This time however, the innocent victims of their crusade to wipe out western civilization have the ability to fight back. That's just what we're going to do.

The crusaders had a mission to force everyone to conform to their religious views, and if they didn't you would be killed as a heretic. The Arabs have a mission to force everyone to conform to their religious views, and if you don't you will be killed as a heretic. *That's* the comparison, not us fighting back. And to pick on George Bush because he used the word "crusade", and to promote the half truths and twisted partisan political statements that started this thread, is the epitome of simple minded partisan politics. But I didn't really expect anything else from you George.

_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Originally posted by PianoMuse:Sometimes I think everyone forgets that we are all humans. Bush is human, Every one of his cabinet members, every senator, every polition, every FBI member, CIA, they are all human. We start doing "finger pointing" towards one person, such as Bush, i think it is unbelievably unfair. [/b]

Just so.

However:

Don't think for a minute that I will not hold the next President's feet to the fire just as I do with Mr. Bush. Doesn't matter who it is, or what party he (she?) hails from.

They are politicians, every one. Gotta have 'em, but don't turn your back on 'em.

Originally posted by PianoMuse:Sometimes I think everyone forgets that we are all humans. Bush is human, Every one of his cabinet members, every senator, every polition, every FBI member, CIA, they are all human. We start doing "finger pointing" towards one person, such as Bush, i think it is unbelievably unfair. You can't put the weight of the world on a man's shoulders and excpect him to notice every flaw, to never mess up...people are devious, people are kind, people are angry...there is nothing you can do to stop this. Nothing, throughout the folds of time, has ever come along to predict what exactly each person will do next, what will happen that will change history forever. So, i think before finger pointing and scapegoating is done, there needs to be an inward reflection of ourselves, and realizing that everyone in the world is just as human as we.[/b]

All well and good, but we are the ones who elect these men and so we are the ones who need to evaluate if they are doing a good job. If we do not evaluate them -- which includes pointing out mistakes in their judgement, decisions and policies -- then we are not doing our job as voters.

Bush2 may be a very nice guy. In fact, from all that I have read and heard, I suspect he is one helluva a fun guy to be with. But he is the President the Supreme Court selected and therefore we have a duty to review and judge his job as the President. If we only do this during the campaign when all the candidates are putting out wonderful comments about themselves and negative comments about their opponents, we are not doing our job. We must watch them as they do their job -- it is the only way to truly evaluate if they are the proper one for that job.

Hey George - in your partisan glee at the prospects that you'd finally found something to smear Bush with (some of your Democrat Bozos even went so far to say it was "bigger than Watergate"), you have grabbed onto the party line just a little too quickly and as a result - you have stepped in the same doggie poo as the party first/nation second politicians you have put your faith in.

It seems that your clueless Democrat heroes are stepping all over each other as they try to run away from the mess they've made by trying to play politics at the expense of the nation. It seems that both the Senate and House intelligence committees, as well as many other senators and congressmen of both parties, were given the reports on terror you have tried to smear Bush with 24 hours after he got them!! It turns out that not only did the Democrats in Congress get the same intelligence briefing Bush got word for word, they got it straight from the White House. And they did nothing with the information either. The reason? There was nothing specific in it, it referred to overseas activity, not here, and it wasn't a warning at all, but simply analytical data that something *could* happen. So now your Democrat buddies are running around claiming they get a pass because they aren't terrorist experts.

As soon as I feel like it's worth the effort, I'll show you why your other example is just as flawed, and that it was Bill Clinton who enabled Lay and Enron, not GW Bush.

Would you like some BBQ sauce for that crow you've got to eat?

_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Let me just say at the outset that I have some real differences with the Bush Administration. From my point of view they have caved in to the left on just about every issue from education to agriculture to tax policy to campaign finance reform and on and on. I realize that they are probably engaging in an election year strategy that involves neutralizing the issues on which Democrats run. But, in the process, they are advancing their opponent's agenda if only by half steps. I also am not entirely comfortable with the way that the Justice Department "wish list" first proposed by Bill Clinton and rejected by Congress to deal with terrorism has now been almost entirely enacted. There are some provisions of this piece of legislation that I find alarming.

That being said, I am astonished (although I should not be) at the complete 180 that the left has taken for obvious political reasons. They circle like sharks at even the slightest puff of smoke or innuendo in a frenetic effort to hang something, ANYTHING, on President Bush, each time coming up with a handfull of just that, smoke. Yet when confronted by real, obvious, and thoroughly documented cases of misfeasance and MALfeasance by the former occupant of the White House their response was always some version of "everybody does it".

Now, I am not certain of our friend George's disposition toward the Clinton Administration. For all I know he could have been just as shocked by Bill Clinton's behavior as any of us so-called "Clinton haters". All I can say, George is what you have listed above is a lot of vague innuendo and supposition leading to certain "impressions" and "appearances" that amount to nothing. Just a big handful of smoke and no evidence of any fire. You are repeating verbatim the political rantings of the very people I described in the previous paragraph. You should not allow yourself to become associated with their breathtaking hypocrisy.

I really do not have the time or inclination to, point by point, pick this nonsense apart although it would not be a very difficult task. All I can say to you out of frustration and with tongue deeply embedded in cheek is that "everybody does it" and we should all just "move on".

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Even if Congessional committee were informed, they are not the ones who run the Executive Branch. They can do nothing with the information -- only the Executive Branch can.

Do you think 911 might have been more easily prevented if, say, the airlines and airports had been put on a heightened alert status? If the people at Logan in Boston had been told that for several months there had been increasing reports of potential hijacking and they should implement higher security measures, would they have possibly stopped the terrorists from getting through?

And what would have happened if the Administration went public completely with this, especially the reports of possible attacks on New York and Washington -- apparently the reports with this explicit, that they named the target cities? Is it possible that the terrorists would have stepped back because they expected increased security and vigilance, and therefore could not succeed?

No one knows for sure, of course. But what we do know is that with no warning at all, no one could take any measures at all.

So, why was there no warning issued even to the airports and airlines? Obviously, a mistake in judgement -- a mistake that caused the loss of 3000 lives, the start of a war, curtailment of civil liberties, billions of dollars being spent on security machines and devices, millions of people being inconvenienced, a massive downturn in the economy for a few months, national and worldwide angst, fear in the hearts of the American people, etc. etc.

You can call the criticism simply political all you want. You can claim that this is just the opposition gleefully attacking a supposedly popular president for political gain and therefore should be ignored. And you can all pick apart my comments all you want, saying that specific comments are innuendo, misinterpretations or whatever. Take them apart point by point if you'd like. Play the semantics game all you want. Point the finger at previous administrations if you want, raising the dirt of the past.

None of this negates the fact this was a horrible mistake in judgement by the Bush2 Administration of massive proportions. This is serious stuff, very serious, because the consequences have been and continue to be so massive.

Yes, there are those who will make political hay out of this. That is part of the game that Bush2 plays in. He would do the same.

But there are others, far more serious people, who see this for what it is and recognize people must be held accountable, that we must understand what went wrong and why so it does not happen again. And if this tarnishes or even destroys the image of Bush2, then so be it. But because it does tarnish him does not make the criticism and questioning and investigations simply political. It is what keeps this country strong. To stop the investigationsbecause of the political damage it may do to Bush2 would be wrong -- THAT would be playing politics.

Our government officials should be held accountable for their mistakes in judgement. Some we accept, some we don't.

The question we all have to ask opurselves is whether this mistake on the part of the Bush2 Administration is one we accept, sweep under the rug and live with the consequences as if Bush2 simply garbled some more words or if we think this type of mistake is simply unacceptable.

To me, the impact of this mistake is NOT acceptable. A President is chosen to make decisions -- and when he makes ones which create such a catastrophe, I have no trouble pointing that out, blaming him for it and using it to evaluate whether he is a good President for this country or not. He is elected to make decisions and give direction to keep this country safe -- that is his most basic job. And when he bungles his most basic job of keeping this country safe to this extent, his ability and acceptability to govern must be questioned.

George your hindsight is, of course, 20/20. You are second guessing what is a judgment call which could have deleterious consequences either way it was made. Keeping airports on a "heightened alert status" for an indefinite and unknown period of time is not an option. In hindsight it is easy to say that if airports were more secure this tragedy would not have happened but that is only armed with the knowledge of what happened. Not with the supposition of what might happen. And nobody could have, in their wildest dreams, imagined that four aircraft would be hijacked simultaneously by terrorists determined to pilot these aircraft into buildings. NO specific warning of an event like that was even close to being perceived.

This is all politically motivated and very unseemly. Also, to describe the Intelligence Committees of Congress as being completely impotent in the face of, what you describe as, dire warnings is disingenuous and you know it. When did Democrats in Congress ever just sit on their hands because a matter might be an issue for the Executive Branch. That is a lot of hooey and that is why they are, now, headed for the tall grass.

The fact is, the warnings that were issued were not specific enough in nature to mobilize a general alert and to do so would have very likely not have stopped this particular, unforeseen, type of attack. You may believe that you have caught the Bush Administration in a case of serious misfeasance but, you will end up with a whole lot of nothing.

With regard to your assertion that there was a warning that an attack may occur against Washington or New York, that warning came out in Time Magazine (Picked up by Guess who in December of 1998. And guess who was President then (Hint: It was not GWB).

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

Do you think 911 might have been more easily prevented if, say, the airlines and airports had been put on a heightened alert status? If the people at Logan in Boston had been told that for several months there had been increasing reports of potential hijacking and they should implement higher security measures, would they have possibly stopped the terrorists from getting through?[/b]

Listen to yourself, George. "Several months".....the report you are having such a fit over was received near the end of August. You are talking about a period of about 3 weeks, not several months. Secondly, the FAA *was* advised, as was other necessary agencies, including the House Intelligence Committee - with its several democrat members. The problem was the information was not specific, in spite of what you seem to choose to believe, which comes up next.

Quote:

And what would have happened if the Administration went public completely with this, especially the reports of possible attacks on New York and Washington -- apparently the reports with this explicit, that they named the target cities?[/b]

You need to get your news from somewhere other than that which is provided to you by the Communist News Network. The report did not give specific cities, in fact it led them to believe the danger was in overseas cities, not here. And 24 hours after Bush got it, the House intelligence committee got it. If the report was so specific, why didn't some of your democrat buddies catch it? It apparently was so vague they didn't even remember they had seen the report until *after* they had made fools of themselves by running around claiming they had uncovered "the next watergate" - a direct quote. And even then, no one had any way of knowing that the hijackers would use the planes as missiles. They thought it would be a plane hijacked overseas with demands to be taken to some other overseas location, or for ransom. Not missiles.

Quote:

No one knows for sure, of course. But what we do know is that with no warning at all, no one could take any measures at all. [/b]

No, we don't know that. What we *do* know is that this was a daily briefing, it was mostly analytical in nature, did not lead anyone including the House Intelligence Committee or anyone at the FAA, the various senators and congressmen who were told about it, or the FBI or CIA who also knew about it, to think the hijackings would occur on our soil, or that they would be used as missiles. You simply have your facts wrong. I'll tell you why, but you won't like it.......you're relying on left-friendly media who are looking for things to bash the right with, instead of looking for facts, and you're doing it because it fits your own predisposed views. Try widening your sources of information, and opening your mind.

Quote:

So, why was there no warning issued even to the airports and airlines? Obviously, a mistake in judgement -- a mistake that caused the loss of 3000 lives, the start of a war, curtailment of civil liberties, billions of dollars being spent on security machines and devices, millions of people being inconvenienced, a massive downturn in the economy for a few months, national and worldwide angst, fear in the hearts of the American people, etc. etc.[/b]

Last time I checked George, the FAA *was* the one you notified if you wanted the airlines and airports to be aware of something. That was done. But again, the information was not of the kind to make them think an attack would occur on US soil. It led them to believe it would occur overseas, but even that was vague.

As to the rest of this statement - give me a break. It is now a known fact that the recession started nearly a year before Bush took office. Yes, 9/11 added to things, but that wasn't the cause of it. Think back, George. Any economist will tell you that by the time people are talking about a recession, it's nearly over. And the left started talking about a recession the minute Bush declared his candidacy. They blamed the "slowdown" on the prospect of "another Bush" possibly getting in the White House. When he won the primary, they blamed "the slowdown" on that. When it got near election time, they claimed Bush was *causing* the recession by talking about it (even though they had been talking about it for months as they used it against Bush and Republicans in general) and when he won the election they decided that they too would talk about it, even though they had previously claimed that talking about it was causing it - but they now wanted to claim it was caused by Bush. Now, you want to claim the recession was "caused" by 9/11. When will you Democrats ever figure out that the recession began brewing 2 years before, and hit full steam during the last 6-9 months of Clinton's term?

Quote:

You can call the criticism simply political all you want. You can claim that this is just the opposition gleefully attacking a supposedly popular president for political gain and therefore should be ignored. And you can all pick apart my comments all you want, saying that specific comments are innuendo, misinterpretations or whatever.[/b]

OK. But by the way..... your bias is showing. Bush isn't a "supposedly" popular president. He's *definitely* a popular president. And that just kills you democrats. It also grates your nerves when you read how the majority of people, when asked, now say they don't like Algore.

Quote:

None of this negates the fact this was a horrible mistake in judgement by the Bush2 Administration of massive proportions. [/b]

No, the horrible mistake was when the democrats decided to use it for their own political gain. It has caused them to look like the fools they are, and is bringing to light the real facts, which is that 1>it was a purely analytical report of vague possibilities with no specific locations or methods mentioned, but that even the proper agencies including the democrats in the House intelligence committee considered to be more likely to occur overseas, and 2>some of the very ones who had been given the report and obviously did nothing with it either were the first ones to jump on the bandwagon as they gleefully talked about "the next watergate". Your democrats have shown themselves to be exactly what many of us on the right say they are - purely interested in their own political future, and willing to sacrifice the good of the nation to insure their political futures.

Quote:

But there are others, far more serious people, who see this for what it is and recognize people must be held accountable, that we must understand what went wrong and why so it does not happen again. And if this tarnishes or even destroys the image of Bush2, then so be it. But because it does tarnish him does not make the criticism and questioning and investigations simply political. It is what keeps this country strong. To stop the investigationsbecause of the political damage it may do to Bush2 would be wrong -- THAT would be playing politics.

Our government officials should be held accountable for their mistakes in judgement. Some we accept, some we don't.

The question we all have to ask opurselves is whether this mistake on the part of the Bush2 Administration is one we accept, sweep under the rug and live with the consequences as if Bush2 simply garbled some more words or if we think this type of mistake is simply unacceptable. [/b]

I see....would these supposed "serious people" be the ones who did not ask for this same kind of investigation when, after the same kind of advance warning as we are talking about here, Clinton did nothing in 1993 and the WTC was attacked the first time? Would these "serious people" be the ones who did not ask for this same kind of investigation when a few year later another report of this same kind was given to Clinton saying terrorists were planning to attack ships in harbors, and he did nothing, and (I forget the name of the ship right now) one was blown up while in dock overseas in a location that yet another report of this same type as we are talking about warned him that this port was a prime possibility for one of these attacks? There are a few more I could give you George, but these two make the point.

Also, I assume you were in complete agreement that Clinton should have been impeached, then tried for treason, since you are so firm in your opinion that our leaders should be held accountable for their lapses in judgment. I am assuming of course that you would categorize decisions made with full knowledge of harming the country to be included in this standard as well. Now we can talk about the purposeful selling out our national security to China, the purposeful decimation of our military, and the purposeful selling out our rights to the UN.

Quote:

To me, the impact of this mistake is NOT acceptable. [/b]

Was the impact of the above mentioned mistakes acceptable, however? I mean.....it *was* a democrat who made them after all, so I guess we shouldn't be mentioning them.....we should understand that the man was just too busy getting a Lewinsky to be bothered with having to make decisions like this......

Quote:

A President is chosen to make decisions -- and when he makes ones which create such a catastrophe, I have no trouble pointing that out, blaming him for it and using it to evaluate whether he is a good President for this country or not. He is elected to make decisions and give direction to keep this country safe -- that is his most basic job. And when he bungles his most basic job of keeping this country safe to this extent, his ability and acceptability to govern must be questioned.[/b]

So where is your outrage toward Herr Clinton? When he bombed an aspirin factory to take attention away from his impeachment woes that resulted from his lying under oath, when he sat on his hands (or Monica's face) instead of addressing the reports he was getting about terrorists blowing up the WTC, the reports of terrorists planning to blow up a ship in port, and on and on and on......where was your outrage?

It is hypocritical to fail to address these issues, or make excuses for them, while you sit in righteous judgment over the little puff of smoke you just got fed by the rabid Socialist party we used to fondly refer to as the Democratic Party.

As I see it, those who leaned toward the Democratic party and who have an open mind ought to be having serious questions right about now concerning their past favorable views of the political left. This entire episode has shown just how willing they are to sacrifice the good of the nation for political advantage.

_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

OK, I'll give in. It was just a mistake in judgement. Bush2 should not be faulted for not making sure the right questions were asked. Bush2 should not be faulted for not making sure his appointees followed through on what was done. Bush2 should not be faulted for not having aides who had the understanding of the significance of the warnings. Bush2 should not be faulted for having aides who did not interpret the information correctly.

No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack him for mistakes in judgement. After all, he was only in charge.

Along these lines, I'm also going to overlook the terrible impacts decisions of the Catholic Bishops have had. I am not going to criticize them for not getting the proper information about the nature of the sexual abuser or for not having assistants to advise them of the seriousness and the pain or to having seen the pattern and taken care of it. No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

And I am not going to attack the Enron executives for destroying the pensions of 100o's of people, for having destroyed a company and and an accounting firm leaving 1000's unemployed. I am not going to attackm for them for not listening to people around them that what they were doing was dangerous and questionable and possibly illegal. No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

In fact, I am not going to criticize any top manager for any failure in his organization, no matter how catastrophic the consequences, simply because he made decisions that were wrong, based on incomplete information, or did not see the need to ask other questions or demand more information, or did not take actions which would have prevented the consequences. No matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

Quite clearly, the person in charge should not be held responsible for what his organization does --even if he was briefed on what was happening. It is not his reposnibility to ask the right questions, to make sure he gets as much information as possible and then to follow through to make sure his directives are followed. After all, this is just a mistake in judgement and no matter how massive and terrible the consequences, it is not fair, with 20/20 hindsight, to attack these men for mistakes in judgement. After all, they were only in charge.

Actually, the first time the prospect was raised about Al Quede using airplanes was in 1995, by the Phillipine government, after a raid on Ramsi Yousef's former hideout.

It was again raised in a U.S. government memo in 1999.

The intelligence referred to in this latest Democrat-generated political attack was disseminated within 24 hours to the Senate Intelligence Committee. John Edwards, Democartic hopeful from North Carolina, has admitted such, after an initial statement that he knew nothing about it.

I never could stomach Free Willy Clinton. He is the typical sleazy Southern political operative, and why so many people did not immediately see through the smoke and mirrors is beyond me. Reminded me a lot of Edwin Edwards, former Governor of Louisiana, who is desperately fighting to stay out of the Federal Penitentiary for the rest of his life.

But with even my nadir opinion of Clinton, does one honestly believe the President of the United States would not take action if he had concrete information about a terrorist act that would take the lives of over three thousand Americans? If one would believe that of Bush, yet not of Clinton, it shows a hatred that blinds one to the truth, no matter where the truth comes from.

Originally posted by Jolly: But with even my nadir opinion of Clinton, does one honestly believe the President of the United States would not take action if he had concrete information about a terrorist act that would take the lives of over three thousand Americans? If one would believe that of Bush, yet not of Clinton, it shows a hatred that blinds one to the truth, no matter where the truth comes from.[/b]

Agreed. I do not think, nor do I know of anyone who thinks, that Bush2 knew about the attack and chose to do nothing about it. (This is an interesting defense by the Bush2 Admin, since no one has accused him of this)

The issue people are raising is one of whether he did what he needed to do so that he could make a good decision.

Of course, as everyone on here has said, we cannot question a decision now, after all these months after the action (or lack thereof) occured). Using 20/20 hindsight is not fair. Of course, I am not sure when one questions a decision except after one knows what it is and one has seen the consequences of that decision -- but I guess smarter people than I can determine whether a decision was good or not at some other point rather than after its effects are known.

But, as JBryan says, we need not concede that Bush made a mistake in judgement. No matter the alternatives he could have had (and for all we know were presented to him) and what other options he could have exercised to get more information or consider alternatives, I guess I will have to concede that he made the best decision he could based on the information he had and his understanding of what the right thing to do was.

Which is also what the Bishops did and what Enron Execs did and what other leaders of organizations do. Truly, I doubt anyone sets out to make a bad decision or make a mistake in judgement.

And if after time passes it becomes clear that an alternative course of action might have resulted in a better, perhaps MUCH better, outcome, we cannot criticize the decision with 20/20 hindsight because it is not fair to question a decision after it is made and we have suffered from it.

So, whether or not the decision maker asks the right questions, his appointees are the best ones to interpret the information properly, he forces the organization he heads to get him the information he needs -- we can't hold HIM responsible just because he's in charge.

No, JBryan is right, this is not a mistake in judgement -- he did the best he could do what what he had. And so does everyone else. I cannot be critical of Bush2 in this matter. The way he handled this resulted in just a small attack and a small war and small incursions into our civil rights and the people who lost someone should not be that upset -- after all, people die every day.

No need to be critical of him just because of the effects that might have been avoided had the White House handled this differently. Or to be critical of the Bishops because they could have handled it differently. or Enron Execs or anyone else. They all made the decisions they made and the effects of their decisions should not have any bearing on whether a situation was handled properly, a good decision was made or there was a mistake in judgement.

No need to be critical of him just because of the effects that might have been avoided had the White House handled this differently. Or to be critical of the Bishops because they could have handled it differently. or Enron Execs or anyone else. They all made the decisions they made and the effects of their decisions should not have any bearing on whether a situation was handled properly, a good decision was made or there was a mistake in judgement. [/b]

There is really no comparison between the decisions Bush made and these other cases you cite and if you can't see that then this discussion is pointless. Clearly there is an attempt here to hold Bush responsible for these attacks and I find it actually despicable. Unless you can show me evidence that he willfully ignored clear evidence of an impending attack then all of your clever locutions fall under their own weight.

To say that he is responsible simply because he is in charge misses the point by a country mile since what he should be accountable for is any mistakes made by him or anyone under his control. No such mistakes have been shown to have been made.

Therefore, in absence of any evidence that he did not do all that could be reasonably expected of him to do given the information available then what exactly is he to be held accountable for? This whole discussion gets sillier and sillier as you retreat into ever more indefensible accusations. Maybe you should quit while you are ahead.

By the way, the discussion about Bill Clinton may be irrelevant in terms of the present situation but it is instructive to note the reactions of those now tossing accusations about to the real evidence that Clinton did ignore clear warnings and loss of life resulted. It's that little hypocrisy thing you see.

_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %$@#! darkness.

We keep bringing it up George, because you can't seem to see how biased you are and we're trying to show you. You usually try to present yourself as being in the middle of the road, the one who wants to argue the great "grey area". But you bit the big one this time by picking up the latest turd the left dropped, and you got caught factually challenged. Given the quite large amount of facts which prove your statement wrong, and the absolute lack of proof to support your statement, you had to concede to the facts. But even when you do you do so by conceding with sarcastic remarks and comparisons.

I think that's what is referred to as a "yellow dog democrat" - right or wrong, sing the democrat song.

The democratic party is dysfunctional - they do all kinds of stupid things, then accuse other people of doing them and demanding an investigation.

I almost wish Bush would get caught getting a Lewinsky so I could listen to Tom Daschle of the Obstructionist wing of the Socialist party as he twisted into contortions trying to figure out how to have Bush impeached without looking like a bigger fool than he already does.

Here's one for you to work on George. With Clinton raking in millions now, tell me how the left justifies the fact that not only did Clinton not make the slightest attempt to give any financial help to those who were ruined providing him with alibies, he now won't pay his attorneys. And has anyone else noticed that now that he doesn't have to use that fake lip biting pose he so often used when giving public speeches, now every time the camera hits him he looks like a gas station attendant from Mudskip Alabama attending his annual Moose Lodge convention?

_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

In a time of war (indeed we are at war) I find it appalling and downright un-American to read some of the things the George is spitting out.

The Dems are doing everything they can to destroy a descent man, Bush (no I don't agree w/all everything he does) and at the same time putting our national security at risk...Sadam H. is probably laughing his ugly ass off!!!!

I would like to have heard the Dems complaints if Bush would have instituted new strict security measures based on evidence that could as well have been propaganda for the enemy---what was Bush to do----these guys get reports like this every week...do we cripple ourselves based on info that is not specific or neccessarily credible in any way---in that scenerio the terrorist wins.

I'm, not laughing and I think George and the like ought think about how fortunate they are to be living in this country.

The reason Clinton is germaine is because of the original allegation put forth by the originator of this thread. The idea is put forth quite bluntly that George W. Bush did not act properly on information he supposedly had in his possession prior to the attacks.

It is now glaringly clear that this same information had been available for years. Neither Bush nor Clinton, felt that the threat was credible enough to warrant massive federal intervention.

If one wants to argue that Bush's information would have been better had not Congress hamstrung the HUMINT function of all the intelligence agencies, or that Torrecelli's gutting of the CIA's policy of hiring unsavory characters to spy on their compadres, or that the CIA and FBI do not talk to each other about terrorism ( a leftover from the Carter administration), then we may find common ground.

Other than that, the argument that Bush dropped the ball on 911, is trying desperately to make chicken salad out of chicken ****.